Quite often when privacy is discussed, some people ask why we need privacy. Some then continues on and say that its already lost and what ever harm is done and are things we need to live with.
Well, this is the harm. Selective use of government "scrutiny" against those that are perceive as a threat. The only positive side of this news is that they haven't gone very far. String search of groups names feels very much like how block filters worked before deep-packet inspection. With the social graphs[1] already in existence, this type of targeting could be made very efficient and only requires the sharing of data between different government branches.
Very well said. In my not-so-democratic home country, in many businesses the norm of doing business is not strictly by the law and the government turns blind eye on this as long as you play the ball. Whenever somebody upsets somebody in power, the might of the legal system crushes them without touching their cooperating competitors. It is completely legal way to silence anybody who you don't like that much. The non-profits are even more exposed.
We even have a mayor who tried to demolish the campus of a prestigious university that issued reports about contamination in the drinking water, putting political pressure on the mayor. After some media circus(the mayor sent bogus samples to be analyzed but when university took the samples by itself, the results were much different), somehow he found an irregularity in the papers of the buildings and issued an order to for demolishing the 60 years old, architecture awards winning campus. Thankfully the court decided that destroying the university was not in benefit of the society and blocked the order.
I have to note that this happened in the capital of the country, the irregularity was that the drawings were not in the exact same scale that the town required and somehow the legal system proceeded so quickly when lagging for years to prosecute many scandalous building projects of some friendly businessmen.
Not accurate. This was politically self-defeating (for the IRS personnel concerned, in that period in Ohio) but it wasn't Orwellian. These groups are anti-tax, associated with the Sovereign Citizens movement, and also applying for a nonprofit status that legally constrains political activities that these were likely to engage in. And in the end, they all got their nonprofit status anyhow. So the screaming about how they were picked on is really disingenuous.
Tax collection is a necessity for every first world country and unfortunately that means not taking every application for a nonprofit status at face value.
Linking every Tea Party group to the Sovereign Citizens movement is just a smear.
'Not being opposed to taxation' isn't one of the eligibility criteria for a non-profit.
501(c)(4) (aka social welfare) organizations can participate in political activities if they like. Many of the applications were for 501(c)(4) organizations.
Many of the groups targeted never received their nonprofit status after being unwilling to comply with the extensive and invasive documentation requests.
Tax collection might be a necessity for every first world country, but so is a bureaucracy that doesn't use its power for political purposes. Apparently, America doesn't have one of those.
No, wasn't saying that, I was merely correcting the parent's understanding as to what the tea party is. The IRS's behaviour frankly only furthers their cause.
Moreover, it was also a decision at the staffer level that was corrected by superiors as soon as they found out about it, ie, before it had any meaningful impact.
Fixing things before they break... puts them one up on the banking sector by my count.
That part is blatantly untrue. The amount of paperwork and information forwarded (including lists of people) to the IRS was a meaningful impact and the delay causes had election effects.
This allows them to do thing like pull all your emails and social activity simply on suspicion of doing anything wrong -- if you are flagged for any reason (as in this article) These processes are being automated.
This means that it is possible, but currently unlikely, that whoever flagged these groups could have then automatically pulled down all the email and social networking chatter of the organizers behind the groups. This would have effectively given the government a "God's Eye View" of everything critics were saying and planning.
This has been a year full of stories about the loss of freedom, but as far as the U.S. goes, this has the potential to be the biggest story yet.
This is a classic approach used in Russia and other countries against anti-ruling-party organizations, but I had (probably naively) expected USA to be better than this.
These are anti-tax organizations. Imagine that the taxing authority might be interested in their activities. The head of the IRS is a Republican appointee, who if anything would be sympathetic to them from a political standpoint.
Would you advocate in favor of DEA agents harassing marijuana legalization non-profits? Preemptively: if not, why are you defending the practice of the same being done to your political opponents?
That's a nonsensical question, because the DEA does not have the authority or responsibility to decide anything about applications for non-profit status under tax law.
IRS does. And if they stop investigating right-wing organizations selectively (while still investigating other applications) because it will be perceived as unfair, then they will be doing the wrong thing.
My understanding is that they are focusing on right wing organizations. If they are just investigating them at the ordinary rate the.n this is not a problem.
The difference is that citizens have a right against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. This constraints what law enforcement agents can do on whims and conjecture. Presumably, the IRS need no cause to provide any tax filing with extra scrutiny or an outright audit. From this perspective, these groups are not protected in the least against "unfair auditing", as that statement has no legal basis whatsoever.. If the IRS can audit anyone's filing, then it makes sense for them to direct limited resources to audit groups who's entire existence is to avoid paying taxess.
Would you advocate in favor of DEA agents harassing marijuana legalization non-profits?
Harassing, no; but it's reasonable to presume that members of groups which agitate for marijuana legalization are more likely to be growing, selling, and/or using marijuana illegally, and thus to have a higher index of suspicion if presented with evidence which might indicate that such illegal activities are taking place.
You appear to be missing the exact point, here. In a free society, it's specifically NOT reasonable for government to investigate anybody based solely on their political advocacy. Government powers should not be used to pursue or dissuade a political agenda. Even the mere threat of an investigation can be a frightening weapon, possibly enough to discourage citizens from political activities.
There's a difference between investigating people based on their political activities and investigating people because their comments indicate a likelihood of criminal activity.
To take an extreme case: If I travel around the US and tell everybody I encounter that I think the White House should be blown up, I think it would be entirely reasonable for the Secret Service to investigate. I might make such proclamations out of abstract personal convictions, or I might make them because I'm the sort of crazy person who would actually try to blow up the White House; the whole point of investigation is to determine which.
Philosophically, I believe you're correct. But in practice, it's all too easy for a government official to harass political opponents for partisan ends, while steadfastly claiming to be objective and neutral. Barring an outright admission of bias, there's no simple way to prove a political agenda.
As a result, US jurisprudence has grown to recognize the potential for government acts to have "chilling effects" on individual rights, even with no evidence of overt bias. Under this theory, certain civil rights (speech, religion, voting, due process) are so terrifically important that government must err on the side of caution, rather than risk discouraging their exercise.
Of course, as with any civil rights issue, we do consider the severity of circumstances in each case. Unfettered free speech swings a lot of weight, but there are always exceptions. Preventing violent terrorist acts (as in your last example) might justify allowing some chilling effects on speech.
However, the courts have vigorously protected speech advocating NON-violent criminal acts (sit ins, protests, draft-card burning) and changes to current laws (drug prohibition). This category seems to cover both your earlier example (marijuana reform), as well as the original situation (tax reform).
And FWIW, kids: This little back-and-forth is a great example of why arguments by analogy don't work.
Remember though the right in the USA has been on a tear of paranoia.
This sounds an awful lot like a bureaucratic directive ("there's an awful lot of alleged tea party groups raising a lot of dough, keep an eye out") being reinterpreted through the conspiracy lens
The right's paranoia is no worse than the paranoia the left spewed while Bush was in office. See: John Ashcroft, supposed spawn of Satan, or Hillary Clinton's vast right wing conspiracy theory. It's a rule of DC politics that whenever a new President is elected, the party that lost goes crazy until they're back in office (then they claim it's other guys that are crazy and paranoid).
'We all' don't agree in the slightest, about this or the government's cynical attempt to blame the security failure in Benghazi on some random scapegoat's YouTube video. Speak for yourself and not others.
It's the IRS's job to collect tax revenue. It's not the IRS's job to protect its own existence. That's politics, and the IRS should not be involved in politics.
I think you are misunderstanding. I believe the parent's point is not that the IRS is targeting anti-tax groups out of umbrage or fear, but that people who loudly declare taxation to be illegitimate are signaling, "Hey, I'm especially likely to try and evade paying taxes."
Similarly, if there were a group dedicated to the idea that seducing little boys was OK, you could expect it to get some extra scrutiny from the FBI. This is not because the FBI is made up of little boys who feel threatened, but because these people are waving a big red flag that they're probably engaged in activities that the FBI has an interest in.
You're using an extreme example, and I think a lot of people will agree in that case because it's extreme, but might have reservations about applying the same logic elsewhere. For example, should it be ok to single out people who advocate marijuana legalization for drug crime investigations?
There has to be some restraint, or else people will be afraid to participate in the political process.
I think it depends on what kind of "singling out" is being considered. What the IRS agents did in this case definitely crossed the line. But they should be allowed to scrutinize applications from suspect groups, and probably also be allowed to ask for more information to the extent that they would in a random audit. Further than that should require strong probable cause and warrants and all the other due process that was ignored by the IRS agents in this case.
A drug case would probably get to the point of needing a warrant much sooner, since a pro-legalization activist isn't usually directly initiating contact with the government, so the government has no business asking for information without a warrant. But if a pro-legalization activist makes public statements about their illegal activities or intentions, it's okay for the DEA to keep an eye on those public statements and to use them to try to get a warrant.
This wasn't a criminal investigation and is not comparable to a criminal investigation.
I wouldn't be concerned that a group whose politicians have on several occasions advocated: armed marches, intimidation of the other party around polls, refusing to pay tax, shoot census takers, or preparation for civil war - was "afraid to participate in the political process." I would rather be concerned that it was causing others to be afraid to participate in the political process. This IRS gaffe is covering a history of anti-democratic conduct from the very group beating its breast (even as its groups enjoy the nonprofit status which the IRS gave them long ago).
And if there were a group dedicated to drug legalization, we'd be fine with the DEA targeting them for arbitrary surveillance and investigation. Right? Wait, we wouldn't? Hold on, something is not adding up.
Basically, the two things are not very much alike, because the DEA isn't supposed to be able to initiate a full-scale investigation without a warrant, while the IRS has a bit more discretion in whom it scrutinizes.
Isn't that the same argument that people use for race discrimination regarding the use of police focus? They reason in a very similar way that its better go after groups like black poor people, than say white middle class.
Why spend equal amount of time investigating everyone? Because the alternative is worse.
It's worth noting the IRS also targeted various Jewish organizations (eg Z Street) as well, not just those critical of the government and taxation like the Tea Party.
Clearly the IRS has a problem with targeting bias.
Or just scrap the whole tax thing. We were building roads and services before taxes.
Every justification for taxation not only has evidence that there is no correlation between tax revenues and resolved problems, but that we are more than capable of solving these problems ourselves through voluntary collaboration, rather than coercive.
> We were building roads and services before taxes.
That's all I need: Paying to use Verizon Interstate Highway in order to traverse my state.
Infrastructure is one of the few things that taxes are pretty good for, as most everyone benefits from roads, utility grids, etc.. War, scanning air travelers, and installing the Great Eye of Sauron at every intersection are not good uses of public money.
"The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations"
This means they can have pretend massive markup on everything and write it off. It's a dodge, just like many church "leaders" drive crazy expensive cars.
Just eliminate it, no tax exemptions, everyone on the same level.
Between 2010 and 2012, applications doubled in volume. A large part of that increase was Tea Party groups. Seems like the review was pointed at the right target (when I owned a business, I inspected the work of the new guys more than the people who had been with me for a few years). The real issue should be that 300 groups were reviewed and none were rejected. The 501(c)(4) class is filled with "social welfare" groups that provide no social welfare. The only "social welfare" I see is lobbying and ads filled with half truths (this goes for liberal groups as well, though not as much). If you want to limit abortions or allow more access to guns (just examples, not a description of the groups involved), feel free to do so with donations that get taxed. Just don't tell me it's in the name if social welfare.
"Between 2010 and 2012, applications doubled in volume. A large part of that increase was Tea Party groups."
Really? Do you have a source for that? I'm having a hard time finding a list of all these types of groups. There are some listed on wikipedia, everything from the Colbert SuperPAC to the Washington Science Fiction Association, so what constitutes "social welfare" seems to be pretty loosely evaluated.
Wow Ezra Klein gets it completely wrong. I think he's confusing 501 c(4) and c(3). c(3) are traditional social welfare charities and donations to them are tax exempt, c(4) are explicitly for political lobbying and donations are taxable. (I worked as an executive in this space for a decade). c(4) cannot get involved in elections (they can't call for the election or defeat of a specific candidate) but they can do "voter education". But in any event, the donations made to a c(4) are not tax-deductible and are private. By the way, the c4 privacy rules emerged out of the civil rights movement, when there was a concern about the government punishing people supporting civil rights. Many groups-- think Sierra Club-- have both a c(3) and a c(4) and have internal accounting in place to keep track of it all.
Well, this is the harm. Selective use of government "scrutiny" against those that are perceive as a threat. The only positive side of this news is that they haven't gone very far. String search of groups names feels very much like how block filters worked before deep-packet inspection. With the social graphs[1] already in existence, this type of targeting could be made very efficient and only requires the sharing of data between different government branches.
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2012/freedom-to-conne...